The Federal Circuit recently released an eye-catching opinion in Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., — F. 4th –, Case No. 2022-1212, 2023 WL 6854647 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2023). The panel of three judges held, in a two-to-one decision, that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal
As our colleagues reported in this Seyfarth Shaw Legal Update, President Biden signed a comprehensive Executive Order addressing AI regulation across a wide range of industries and issues. Intellectual property is a key focus. The Order calls on the U.S. Copyright Office and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to provide guidance on IP risks and related regulation to address emerging issues related to AI.Continue Reading White House Directs Copyright Office and USPTO to Provide Guidance on AI-Related Issues
Halloween is a time for us to don a different persona to express our creative side or simply for a bit of fun. People of all ages pick costumes to transform into characters, creatures, or inanimate objects. Whether it’s dressing up as a superhero, a classic movie character, or a spooky monster, costumes play a
Seyfarth has been recognized in World Intellectual Property Review’s inaugural rankings of the leading USA trademark firms and lawyers. WIPR cited Seyfarth as “recommended” for its Non-Contentious Trademark and “notable” for its Contentious Trademark work. Individually, Ken Wilton was “recommended” for his Contentious Trademark work. WIPR bases its rankings on “research that included
The Federal Circuit partially refuted the long held assumption that the trademark applicant has the burden of proving third party marks were in use when determining the strength of the applicant mark. The panel led by Judge Dyk found that when determining the conceptual strength of trademarks, “absent proof of non-use [of registered marks], use
The U.S. Supreme Court’s end-of-term decision in Abitron v. Hetronic seems to have created more questions than answers about U.S. brand owners’ ability to leverage the federal Lanham Act in global trademark disputes. In the few weeks since the Court issued its opinion, parties and courts alike are already struggling with exactly how to apply it.
The Hetronic case originated in the Tenth Circuit. Oklahoma-based Hetronic, a manufacturer of remote controls for construction equipment, sued its former EU distributor for infringing trademarks and trade dress associated with authentic Hetronic products. A jury awarded Hetronic more than $115 million in damages, $96 million of which related to Lanham Act violations. The district court then granted Hetronic a worldwide injunction against defendant Abitron. Abitron appealed, arguing that the award was improper because 97 percent of the sales at issue occurred abroad. The Tenth Circuit tailored the injunction to apply only to markets where Hetronic was actually selling products, but upheld the damage award, reasoning that even activity occurring abroad had a “substantial effect” on U.S. commerce.Continue Reading Courts and Brand Owners Struggling With SCOTUS Decision Limiting Ability to Police Against Foreign Trademark Infringement
A recent lawsuit filed in Washington state court alleging trademark infringement by AmerikanWeed, Palmer v. Komm, illustrates the importance of protecting intellectual property in the cannabis industry.[1]
Because the plaintiffs obtained a Washington state trademark registration, their recourse is limited to that state. To have recourse against infringement outside Washington, a federal registration may provide
The new social media platform Threads was launched on July 5, 2023. Reports indicate that within the first day of launch, more than 30 million users have signed up. The app is designed for text-based conversations instead of photo updates. As users rush to join the platform, brands should also prioritize claiming accounts in order
On May 8, 2023, the USPTO announced its preliminary proposal to adjust its schedule of trademark fees, which was last modified January 2, 2021.[i] The USPTO states that the existing fee schedule does not allow for enough revenue because of (1) the change in both applicant filing behaviors and trademark demand, and (2)